Bill Overview
Title: Consent is Key Act
Description: This bill directs the Department of Justice to increase a state's allocation of funds under the Sexual Assault Services Program if the state has in effect a law that authorizes civil damages and equitable relief against a person who engages in the nonconsensual removal of a sexual protection barrier (e.g., a condom).
Sponsors: Rep. Torres, Norma J. [D-CA-35]
Target Audience
Population: People who engage in consensual sexual activity and may be at risk of stealthing
Estimated Size: 150000000
- The bill directly relates to sexual protection and consent.
- It is focused on the unlawful removal of sexual protection barriers, also known as 'stealthing', which has been a growing concern.
- This issue is relevant to anyone who engages in consensual sexual activity where protection barriers are used, with a notable emphasis on individuals who might be at higher risk for sexual assault.
- The affected population includes individuals who may be victims of stealthing, typically women, but also men in different scenarios.
- The legislation seeks to provide civil and equitable relief, thereby impacting the broader community of sexual assault advocacy and legal entities.
- The implementation of the bill would affect funding allocations at the state level, influencing states' legal frameworks and public policy related to sexual assault prevention and support services.
Reasoning
- The policy specifically targets the issue of stealthing, which affects a subset of the population engaged in consensual sexual activities.
- The potential beneficiaries of this policy include victims of stealthing, who would now have additional legal recourse and support.
- Not all individuals within the target population will be directly affected, as not everyone will experience or be aware of stealthing happening to them.
- The policy might primarily affect individuals in communities where stealthing incidents are reported more frequently or in states that adopt the new legal frameworks early.
- States with comprehensive sexual health education systems may see a more significant impact from the policy, as awareness and reporting of stealthing may increase.
- Budget limitations mean that only states with existing frameworks or high incidences of stealthing might receive prioritized funding.
- It is important to include diverse perspectives, covering various demographics like age, gender, and occupation, to accurately gauge the policy's impact.
Simulated Interviews
college student (California)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's great that there will be stronger consequences for stealthing.
- This could definitely help people feel safer during consensual encounters, knowing there's legal backing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
IT professional (Texas)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think this will impact me directly, but it's good to have laws protecting everyone.
- It seems important for those affected, even if it's not my direct concern.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Social worker (New York)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will empower survivors to seek justice and feel supported.
- It's a critical recognition of the damage stealthing causes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Freelancer (Oregon)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Laws like these make the sexual consent landscape clearer for everyone, especially marginalized groups.
- Hopefully, this increases awareness about the nuances of consent in all communities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
HR manager (Florida)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's reassuring as a parent to know there are stronger protections and educational efforts against stealthing.
- I see this as a crucial development for reducing sexual violence.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired teacher (Ohio)
Age: 68 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not directly impacted, but I support anything that improves safety for my grandchildren.
- Legal measures are necessary, even if they don’t affect everyone directly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Intern (Washington D.C.)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a relief to see policy catching up to protect against stealthing.
- I think this will make younger generations more conscious of boundaries and consent.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Lawyer (Illinois)
Age: 46 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will provide my clients with more options for pursuing justice.
- It's a necessary development in the realm of sexual consent laws.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Fitness trainer (Georgia)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy helps make more people aware of how serious stealthing is.
- It might make me feel more at ease in casual encounters, knowing there's recourse.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Stay-at-home mom (Kentucky)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Parentally, I welcome this policy as a step to safeguard my children’s future.
- Even if it doesn't impact me now, it's good knowing protections are expanding.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 2: $5100000 (Low: $4100000, High: $6100000)
Year 3: $5202000 (Low: $4200000, High: $6200000)
Year 5: $5416000 (Low: $4400000, High: $6400000)
Year 10: $5951000 (Low: $4800000, High: $7000000)
Year 100: $-1 (Low: $-1, High: $-1)
Key Considerations
- The effectiveness of the policy hinges on state compliance and the establishment of relevant laws against stealthing.
- There may be initial costs related to setting up state compliance verification and increased administrative efforts at the federal level.
- The anticipated shift in state laws could create variances in impact, depending on how many states adopt the necessary changes.